Veronica J Jimenez v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2008cv01492 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. Veronica J. Jimenez filed this action on October 31, 2008. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before Magistrate Judge Rosenberg on November 13 and 26, 2008. On May 22, 2009, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation (J.S.) that addressed the disputed issues. The Court has taken the matter under submission without oral argument. Having reviewed the entire file, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. (mp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VERONICA J. JIMENEZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. EDCV 08-1492 AGR MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Veronica J. Jimenez filed this action on October 31, 2008. Pursuant to 28 18 19 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before Magistrate Judge 20 Rosenberg on November 13 and 26, 2008. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 9.) On May 22, 2009, 21 the parties filed a Joint Stipulation ( J.S. ) that addressed the disputed issues. 22 The Court has taken the matter under submission without oral argument. Having reviewed the entire file, the decision of the Commissioner is 23 24 affirmed. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. 2 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 3 On January 16 and 17, 2007, Jimenez filed an application for disability 4 insurance benefits and an application for Supplemental Security Income benefits, 5 both alleging a disability onset date of April 14, 2006. A.R. 9. The applications 6 were denied initially and upon reconsideration. A.R. 38-41. An Administrative 7 Law Judge ( ALJ ) conducted a hearing on June 5, 2008, at which Jimenez and a 8 vocational expert ( VE ) testified. A.R. 16-37. On July 7, 2008, the ALJ issued 9 an unfavorable decision. A.R. 6-15. Jimenez requested review. A.R. 4. On 10 August 22, 2008, the Appeals Council denied Jimenez s request for review. A.R. 11 1-3. This lawsuit followed. 12 II. 13 STANDARD OF REVIEW 14 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the Commissioner s 15 decision to deny benefits. The decision will be disturbed only if it is not supported 16 by substantial evidence, or if it is based upon the application of improper legal 17 standards. Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1995); Drouin v. 18 Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992). 19 Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla but less than a 20 preponderance it is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might 21 accept as adequate to support the conclusion. Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523. In 22 determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the Commissioner s 23 decision, the Court examines the administrative record as a whole, considering 24 adverse as well as supporting evidence. Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257. When the 25 evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Court must 26 defer to the Commissioner s decision. Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523. 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. 4 A person qualifies as disabled and is eligible for benefits, only if his 5 physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not 6 only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, 7 and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which 8 exists in the national economy. Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 21-22, 124 S. 9 Ct. 376, 157 L. Ed. 2d 333 (2003). Disability 10 B. 11 Jimenez has a severe impairment of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. A.R. The ALJ s Findings 12 11. She has the residual functional capacity ( RFC ) to perform light work . . . 13 except no repetitive lifting over 10 pounds and . . . the opportunity to wear a brace 14 on both hands. The claimant is precluded from pushing and pulling over 20 15 pounds, use of vibratory power tools and exposure to excessive concentrations of 16 extreme cold. The claimant is limited to handling and fingering no more than 17 occasionally with the right and no more than frequently with the left. A.R. 12. 18 Jimenez cannot perform her past relevant work. A.R. 13 However, there are 19 jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant 20 can perform, including housekeeper, ticket seller or ticket taker, and usher. A.R. 21 14. 22 C. 23 Jimenez points solely to a guide to prescription and nonprescription drugs Side Effects From Medication 24 stating that possible side effects of Oxybutynin and Tramadol include drowsiness. 25 J.S. at 3:16-21. There is one reference in the record, the last Disability Report - 26 Appeal filed with the Social Security Administration, in which she claims that the 27 two drugs induce drowsiness. A.R. 114. She uniformly reported no side effects 28 3 1 from Tramadol on any earlier Disability Report.1 A.R. 86, 105. Nonetheless, she 2 complains that the ALJ did not address these side effects in his decision. 3 Jimenez does not cite to any evidence that these side effects interfere with 4 her ability to work. At the hearing, Jimenez did not identify side effects as a 5 reason she could not work. A.R. 23-24, 28. Treatment records do not contain 6 any complaint as to side effects from medications. The ALJ did not err. See 7 Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1164 (9th Cir. 2001) ( There were passing 8 mentions of the side effects of [plaintiff s] medication in some of the medical 9 records, but there was no evidence of side effects severe enough to interfere with 10 [her] ability to work. ; statement that medication caused him to doze off 11 insufficient); see also Miller v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 1985) 12 ( [Plaintiff] produced no clinical evidence showing that narcotics use impaired 13 [her] ability to work ). 14 D. 15 To determine whether a claimant s testimony regarding subjective pain or 16 symptoms is credible, an ALJ must engage in a two-step analysis. Lingenfelter 17 v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2007). 18 Jimenez s Credibility At Step One, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented 19 objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which could reasonably 20 be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. The claimant, 21 however, need not show that her impairment could reasonably be expected to 22 cause the severity of the symptom she has alleged; she need only show that it 23 could reasonably have caused some degree of the symptom. Thus, the ALJ 24 may not reject subjective symptom testimony . . . simply because there is no 25 showing that the impairment can reasonably produce the degree of symptom 26 27 28 1 Other than this single report by Jimenez herself that she is taking Oxybutynin, there is no mention of, or prescription for, that drug in any of her medical records. 4 1 alleged. Id. at 36 (citations omitted); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 343 (9th 2 Cir 1991) (en banc). The ALJ found that Jimenez s impairment could reasonably 3 be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. A.R. 13. 4 Second, if the claimant meets this first test, and there is no evidence of 5 malingering, the ALJ can reject the claimant s testimony about the severity of her 6 symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so. 7 Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036 (citations omitted). In making a credibility 8 determination, the ALJ must specifically identify what testimony is credible and 9 what testimony undermines the claimant s complaints. Greger v. Barnhart, 464 10 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). The ALJ did not find malingering. 11 [T]o discredit a claimant s testimony when a medical impairment has been 12 established, the ALJ must provide specific, cogent reasons for the disbelief. Orn 13 v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations and quotation marks 14 omitted). The ALJ must cit[e] the reasons why the [claimant s] testimony is 15 unpersuasive. Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). 16 In weighing credibility, the ALJ may consider factors including: the nature, 17 location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of any pain; 18 precipitating and aggravating factors (e.g., movement, activity, environmental 19 conditions); type, dosage, effectiveness, and adverse side effects of any pain 20 medication; treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain; functional 21 restrictions; the claimant s daily activities; and ordinary techniques of credibility 22 evaluation. Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 346 (citing Social Security Ruling 88-13,2 23 quotation marks omitted); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005). 24 The ALJ may also consider inconsistencies or discrepancies in claimant s 25 26 27 28 2 Social Security rulings do not have the force of law. Nevertheless, they constitute Social Security Administration interpretations of the statute it administers and of its own regulations, and are given deference unless they are plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the Act or regulations. Han v. Bowen, 882 F.2d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1989). 5 1 statements; inconsistencies between claimant s statements and activities; 2 exaggerated complaints; and unexplained failure to seek treatment. Thomas v. 3 Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2002); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 4 1284 (9th Cir. 1996). If the ALJ s credibility finding is supported by substantial 5 evidence in the record, we may not engage in second-guessing. Thomas, 278 6 F.3d at 959; Morgan v. Comm r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th 7 Cir. 1999). 8 Here, the ALJ found that Jimenez s statements concerning the intensity, 9 persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not credible to the extent 10 they are inconsistent with the residual functional capacity assessment. A.R. 13. 11 Jimenez argues that the ALJ did not provide any reasons for discounting 12 her testimony. J.S. at 7. Jimenez is incorrect. The ALJ listed three reasons. 13 First, the ALJ observed that the treating physicians did not recommend 14 surgery and released her to full-time work with restrictions consistent with the 15 ALJ s RFC. A.R. 13. This reason is supported by substantial evidence. In 2006, 16 Jimenez was released to return to work with limitations similar to the ALJ s RFC 17 determination: no repetitive lifting over 10 pounds; no pushing/pulling over 20 18 pounds; must wear a brace; and unable to use impact and power tools with both 19 hands. See A.R. 120 (4/27/06), 121 (4/20/06), 122 (4/17/06), 126 (5/2/06), 136 20 (1/11/07, released to regular duty without restrictions ); see also state agency 21 opinions, A.R. 255-59 (state agency RFC assessment), 263 (same). Although 22 lack of medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain 23 testimony, it is a factor that the ALJ can consider in his credibility analysis. 24 Burch, 400 F.3d at 681. 25 Second, the ALJ observed that Jimenez received $4,000 in workers 26 compensation benefits, but did not use that money to treat her medical problem 27 despite her complaints of a serious and debilitating medical condition. A.R. 13. 28 Although Jimenez alleged at the reconsideration level that her condition had 6 1 worsened, she received no further medical treatment for it. A.R. 13, 263. 2 Jimenez s unexplained failure to seek or continue treatment supports the ALJ s 3 finding that she is not fully credible. Thomas, 278 F.3d at 958-59; Smolen, 80 4 F.3d at 1284. 5 Third, the ALJ considered that five of Jimenez s six children, including 6 triplets aged four, live at home with her at her parents house. A.R. 12, 22. He 7 found that Jimenez s responsibility for taking care of these children is certainly 8 consistent with the ability to perform work within the residual functional capacity 9 assessment found herein. A.R. 12-13; Burch, 400 F.3d at 680; Bunnell, 947 10 11 12 F.2d at 346. In sum, the ALJ stated specific, clear and convincing reasons for finding Jimenez less than fully credible. Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036. 13 E. ALJ s Development Of The Record 14 It is the claimant s duty to prove she is disabled. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 15 F.3d 453, 459 (9th Cir. 2001). See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A) (the claimant must 16 furnish medical and other evidence of her disability); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(c) 17 ( You must provide medical evidence showing that you have an impairment(s) 18 and how severe it is during the time you say you are disabled. ). 19 The ALJ . . . has an independent duty to fully and fairly develop the record 20 and to assure that the claimant s interests are considered. Tonapetyan v. Halter, 21 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations and quotation marks omitted). An 22 ALJ s duty to develop the record further is triggered only when there is 23 ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate to allow for proper 24 evaluation of the evidence. Mayes, 276 F.3d at 459-60. 25 Jimenez contends that the ALJ had a duty to develop the record because 26 she testified that she was going to see her doctor for a referral to a psychiatrist to 27 test her for a mental disorder. J.S. at 13; A.R. 28. Therefore, Jimenez now 28 contends that the ALJ should have requested a psychiatric evaluation. J.S. at 14. 7 The ALJ found, and Jimenez does not dispute, that none of the medical 1 2 records contained any suspicion or diagnosis of a mental impairment. A.R. 12. 3 Moreover, Jimenez did not allege a mental impairment at any time prior to the 4 hearing. A.R. 11-12. At the hearing, Jimenez testified that she kn[e]w that has 5 nothing to do with this case. A.R. 28. The ALJ responded that Jimenez can file 6 a new application in the future if she has a mental impairment that becomes 7 severe enough. Id. Her counsel made no objection. Id. 8 Jimenez has failed to show that the evidence is ambiguous or that the 9 record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence. The ALJ was 10 under no obligation to develop the record further. See Mayes, 276 F.3d at 459- 11 60. 12 F. ALJ s Hypothetical Question to the Vocational Expert 13 The ALJ may rely on testimony a vocational expert gives in response to a 14 hypothetical that contains all of the limitations that the ALJ found credible and 15 supported by substantial evidence in the record. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 16 1211, 1217-18 (9th Cir. 2005). The ALJ is not required to include limitations that 17 are not in his findings. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); 18 Osenbrock, 240 F.3d at 1165. 19 Jimenez argues that the ALJ erred in not including side effects from 20 medication in his hypothetical to the vocational expert. J.S. at 17. Given that 21 there was no substantial evidence that side effects limited or prevented Jimenez 22 from working, as discussed above, the ALJ properly excluded that limitation from 23 his hypothetical to the vocational expert. See Osenbrock, 240 F.3d at 1164 24 (excluding side effects from hypothetical); Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 25 (9th Cir. 2006) (same). 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 8 1 IV. 2 ORDER 3 4 5 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein on all parties or their counsel. 7 8 9 DATED: August 19, 2009 ALICIA G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
